Thursday, March 07, 2013

At the Austin Chronicle, the indefatigable Jordan Smith reported on three recent Texas capital murder convictions overturned by appellate courts. Two of them were discussed on Grits last week, but the third one out of the Fifth Circuit was also notable. They found that a 5th Amendment violation the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals had deemed "harmless error" was not, in fact, so harmless. Instead, the appellate court declared that the CCA "unreasonably applied the clearly established federal law." Moreover, "The evidence of guilt in this case was not overwhelming, and there was substantial evidence supporting acquittal." Judge Priscilla Owen, unsurprisingly, dissented. See Smith's account of the case below the jump:

In that case, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit concluded that the conviction and death sentence handed to Nelson Gongora
in 2003 should be vacated, and the case handed back to the district to
retry or to dismiss. In its ruling, the court concluded that Tarrant
County prosecutors made impermissible comments to the jury about
Gongora's failure to take the stand in his own defense, a clear
violation of his Fifth Amendment right not to be compelled as a
witness. "We find that the extraordinarily extensive comments on
Gongora's failure to testify resulted in actual prejudice," the panel
ruled.

Gongora was among a handful of men indicted for the 2001 robbery and murder of Delfino Sierra.
Gongora was indicted for capital murder in the case, though at trial
prosecutors argued that he was either guilty of the robbery and shooting
or that he was a participant in the robbery during which Sierra was
shot by one of Gongora's cohorts. The result, it seems was confusing:
"The jury heard sharply conflicting evidence regarding Gongora's role in
the offense, including evidence that the shooter may have been someone
other than...Gongora" or a co-defendant, Albert Orosco, reads the Feb.
27 opinion. One witness testified that she didn't see who did the
shooting, while others pointed their fingers in several different
directions, before ultimately ending up on Gongora – including a witness
indicted for the crime but, after agreeing to testify against Gongora,
given a plea for 20 years, and a promise that he would not be prosecuted
for a second shooting, a fact about which the Fifth Circuit seemed none too amused.

Ultimately, though, prosecutors pointed out that only Gongora did not
testify, implying that meant he was the guilty party. Over repeated
objection by the defense, prosecutors continued to point out that he
failed to take the witness stand. The trial judge declined to grant a
mistrial and later rejected Gongora's direct appeal. Texas' Court of Criminal Appeals
also ultimately rejected Gongora's argument that the constant comments
violated his Fifth Amendment protections. The "complained-of comments
appear to be the prosecutors attempt" to comment on the failure of some
other witnesses to testify, the CCA concluded. The comments were "not so
blatant" that they would have prejudiced the jury, the CCA ruled.

Not only was the CCA wrong, the Fifth Circuit has concluded, but to
"conclude otherwise" that the comments did not violate the Fifth
Amendment "empties all meaning of this cornerstone of rights upon which
our criminal justice system rests," the panel ruled. "Its very
centrality renders it a primer rule – etched in the minds of all players
in a criminal case. Single episodic violations wil creep in, but
repeated and direct violations are both inexplicable and inexcusable.
Certainly not excusable by ignorance or inexperience." Not only was the
evidence against Gongora fairly weak, the panel noted, but based on
notes from the jury during their deliberations, it appears they focused
on who and who had not testified – just as prosecutors had suggested
they should.

Gongora will be released from prison within six months unless he is retried or pleads guilty, the court wrote.

"I always tell people interested in these issues that your blog is the most important news source, and have had high-ranking corrections officials tell me they read it regularly."

- Scott Medlock, Texas Civil Rights Project

"a helluva blog"

- Solomon Moore, NY Times criminal justice correspondent

"Congrats on building one of the most read and important blogs on a specific policy area that I've ever seen"

- Donald Lee, Texas Conference of Urban Counties

GFB "is a fact-packed, trustworthy reporter of the weirdness that makes up corrections and criminal law in the Lone Star State" and has "shown more naked emperors than Hans Christian Andersen ever did."

-Attorney Bob Mabry, Conroe

"Grits really shows the potential of a single-state focused criminal law blog"

- Corey Yung, Sex Crimes Blog

"I regard Grits for Breakfast as one of the most welcome and helpful vehicles we elected officials have for understanding the problems and their solutions."

Tommy Adkisson,Bexar County Commissioner

"dude really has a pragmatic approach to crime fighting, almost like he’s some kind of statistics superhero"

- Rob Patterson, The Austin Post"Scott Henson's 'Grits for Breakfast' is one of the most insightful blogs on criminal justice issues in Texas."

- Texas Public Policy Foundation

"Nobody does it better or works harder getting it right"

David Jennings, aka "Big Jolly"

"I appreciate the fact that you obviously try to see both sides of an issue, regardless of which side you end up supporting."

Kim Vickers,Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and EducationGrits for Breakfast "has probably broken more criminal justice stories than any TX reporter, but stays under the radar. Fascinating guy."

Maurice Chammah,The Marshall Project"unrestrained and uneducated"

John Bradley,Former Williamson County District Attorney, now former Attorney General of Palau

"our favorite blog"

- Texas District and County Attorneys Association Twitter feed"Scott Henson ... writes his terrific blog Grits for Breakfast from an outhouse in Texas."